What about Barnabas' Land?

[Lagardo]

In Acts 4:36-37, Barnabas sells land and brings the money to the Apostles. These verses also tell us that Barnabas was a Levite.

Numbers 18:20 and Deut. 10:9 prohibit Levites from owning land, so why does Barnabas have land to sell?

Is the prohibition more against inheriting land as opposed to owning land?

Did Barnabas consider his land sin, and thus his selling it is an act of repentance?

 

[drfuss]

In Acts 4:36-37, Barnabas sells land and brings the money to the Apostles. These verses also tell us that Barnabas was a Levite.

Numbers 18:20 and Deut. 10:9 prohibit Levites from owning land, so why does Barnabas have land to sell?

Is the prohibition more against inheriting land as opposed to owning land?

Did Barnabas consider his land sin, and thus his selling it is an act of repentance?

The Levites were given 48 towns together with their pasturelands, Numbers 35. They were given pasturelands for their own consumption, but not to be landowners with servants and slaves as the rest of the Israelites were. They were only to grow things for their own consumption and not allowed to profit by selling to others.

There was no problem with a Levite owning a field as long as it wasn't his main occupation.

 

[Lagardo]

Thanks for the reference and clarification. I had thought that too, but then stumbled across a commentary which basically said it was an unanswered question as to how Barnabas, a Levite, could own land...which made me wonder.

It does seem to me, thought, that this act for Barnabas is somewhat significant in the light of his being a levite. On one hand, this is a levite giving and offering. Of course, it may also be a complete cutting of ties to any source of support or income for him as well.

 

[npetreley]

Thanks for the reference and clarification. I had thought that too, but then stumbled across a commentary which basically said it was an unanswered question as to how Barnabas, a Levite, could own land...which made me wonder.

I've come across lots of errors and ill-founded presumptions in commentaries. This could be another one.

 

[pinoybaptist]

....a commentary which basically said it was an unanswered question as to how Barnabas, a Levite, could own land...which made me wonder.

Could have been land owned by Sapphira, or Sapphira's parents, unless Sapphira was also Levite.

 

[Lagardo]

Could have been land owned by Sapphira, or Sapphira's parents, unless Sapphira was also Levite.

Am I missing a connection between Barnabas and Sapphira?

 

[npetreley]

Am I missing a connection between Barnabas and Sapphira?

Apparently you're not up on your soaps.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Am I missing a connection between Barnabas and Sapphira?

Sorry, bro. I was thinking of Ananias.
Call me a case of diabetes absentusmindedus.
Apologies.

 

[Lagardo]

Sorry, bro. I was thinking of Ananias.
Call me a case of diabetes absentusmindedus.
Apologies.

No problem at all...I thought that might be what you were thinking, but I didn't know. I love to study these things in the historical context to see the full scope of what is being said.

For some reasone, the Holy Spirit lead Luke to tell us that Barnabas was a levite. What are the implications? A couple of things strike me here:

1) He would be accustomed to recieving tithes and offerings yet now he gives all he has
2) By selling his land, he is making a total commitment. It would be difficult for him to go back to the levites later.

This has been a fun couple of verses to study this week.